Chapter 17
Capital Structure Decisions: Extensions
ANSWERS TO END-OF-CHAPTER QUESTIONS




17-1 a. MM Proposition I states the relationship between leverage and firm value. Proposition I without taxes is V = EBIT/ksU. Since both EBIT and ksU are constant, firm value is also constant and capital structure is irrelevant. With corporate taxes, Proposition I becomes V = Vu + TD. Thus, firm value increases with leverage and the optimal capital structure is virtually all debt.

b. MM Proposition II states the relationship between leverage and cost of equity. Without taxes, Proposition II is ksL = ksU + (ksU – kd)(1 – T)(D/S). Thus, ks increases in a precise way as leverage increases. In fact, this increase is just sufficient to offset the increased use of lower cost debt. When corporate taxes are added, Proposition II becomes Here the increase in equity costs is less than the zero-tax case, and the increasing use of lower cost debt causes the firm’s cost of capital to decrease, and again, the optimal capital structure is virtually all debt.

c. The Miller model introduces personal taxes. The effect of personal taxes is, essentially, to reduce the advantage of corporate debt financing.

d. Financial distress costs are incurred when a leveraged firm facing a decline in earnings is forced to take actions to avoid bankruptcy. These costs may be the result of delays in the liquidation of assets, legal fees, the effects on product quality from cutting costs, and evasive actions by suppliers and customers.

e. Agency costs arise from lost efficiency and the expense of monitoring management to ensure that debtholders’ rights are protected.

f. The addition of financial distress and agency costs to either the MM tax model or the Miller model results in a trade-off model of capital structure. In this model, the optimal capital structure can be visualized as a trade-off between the benefit of debt (the interest tax shelter) and the costs of debt (financial distress and agency costs).

g. Asymmetric information theory assumes managers have more complete information than investors and leads to a preferred “pecking order” of financing: (1) retained earnings, (2) followed by debt, and (3) then new common stock. This fairly recent theory was proposed by Stewart Myers based on a corporate survey by Gordon Donaldson.

h. The Hamada equation is an equation developed by Robert Hamada which combines the CAPM and MM with corporate taxes model to estimate the cost of equity (ksL) to a leveraged firm. The equation divides the cost of equity into three components: (1) the risk-free rate (kRF) to compensate investors for the time value of money, (2) a premium for business risk (kM - kRF)(bU), and (3) a premium for financial risk
(kM - kRF)bU(1 - T)(D/S).

i. Reserve borrowing capacity exists when a firm uses less debt under “normal” conditions than called for by the tradeoff theory. This allows the firm some flexibility to use debt in the future when additional capital is needed.

17-2 Agency costs are the costs associated with monitoring management’s actions to insure that these actions are consistent with contractual agreements among management, stockholders, and debtholders. A large, publicly owned firm would require much more monitoring than a small, unleveraged, owner-managed firm when considering stockholder agency costs. However, bondholder agency costs will be the same for both small and large firms. Therefore, total agency costs will be higher for large, publicly owned firms than for small, unleveraged owner-managed firms.

17-3 Modigliani and Miller show that the value of a leveraged firm must be equal to the value of an unleveraged firm. If this is not the case, investors in the leveraged firm will sell their shares (assume they owned 10%). They will then borrow an amount equal to 10% of the debt of the leveraged firm. Using these proceeds, they will purchase 10% of the stock of the unleveraged firm (which provides the same return as the leveraged firm) with a surplus left to be invested elsewhere. This arbitrage process will drive the price of the stock of the leveraged firm down and drive up the price of the stock of the unleveraged firm. This will continue until the value of both stocks are equal.
The assumptions of the MM model are:

Firms must be in a homogeneous business risk class. If the firms have varying degrees of risk, the market will value the firms at different rates. The earnings of the firms will be capitalized at different costs of capital.

Investors have homogeneous expectations about expected future EBIT. If investors have different expectations about future EBIT then individual investors will assign different values to the firms. Therefore, the arbitrage process will not be effective.

Stocks and bonds are traded in perfect capital markets. Therefore, (a) there are no brokerage costs and (b) individuals can borrow at the same rate as corporations. Brokerage fees and varying interest rates will, in effect, lower the surplus available for alternative investment.

Investors are rational. If by chance, investors were irrational, then they would not go through the entire arbitrage process in order to achieve a higher return. They would be satisfied with the return provided by the leveraged firm.

There are no corporate taxes. With the existence of corporate taxes the value of the leveraged firm (VL) must be equal to the value of the unleveraged firm (VU) plus the tax shield provided by debt (TD).

17-4 MM without taxes would support AT&T, although if AT&T really believed MM, they should not object to Gordon’s 50 percent debt ratio. MM with taxes would lead ultimately to 100 percent debt, which neither Gordon nor AT&T accepted. In effect, Gordon and AT&T seemed to be taking a “traditional” or perhaps a “compromise” view, but with different conclusions about the optimal debt ratio. We might note, in a postscript, that AT&T did raise its debt ratio, but not to the extent that Gordon recommended.

SOLUTIONS TO END-OF-CHAPTER PROBLEMS



17-1 a. bL = bU[1 + (1 - T)(D/S)].

bU = = = .

b. ksU = kRF + (kM - kRF)bU = 10% + (15% - 10%)1.13 = 10% + 5.65% = 15.65%.

The business risk premium is 5.65%.

c. $2 Million Debt: VL = VU + TD = $10 + 0.25($2) = $10.5 million.

ksL = kRF + (kM - kRF)bU + (kM - kRF)bU(1 - T)(D/S)
= 10% + (15% - 10%)1.13 + (15% - 10%)1.13(0.75)($2/$8.5)
= 10% + 5.65% + 4.24%($2/$8.5) = 10% + 5.65% + 1.00% = 16.65%.

The financial risk premium is 1.00%.

$4 Million Debt: VL = $10 + 0.25($4) = $11.0 million.

ksL = 10% + 5.65% + 4.24%($4/$7) = 10% + 5.65% + 2.42% = 18.07%.

The financial risk premium is 2.42%.

$6 Million Debt: VL = $10 + 0.25($6) = $11.5 million.

ksL = 15.65% + 4.24%($6/$5.5) = 15.65% + 4.62% = 20.27%.

The financial risk premium is 4.62%.

d. $6 Million Debt: VL = $8.0 + 0.40($6) = $10.4 million.

ksL = 15.65% + (5%)1.13(0.60)($6/$4.4) = 15.65% + 4.62% = 20.27%.

The mathematics of MM result in the same financial risk premium, 4.62 percent. However, the market value debt ratio has increased from $6/$11.5 = 52% to $6/$10.4 = 58% at the higher tax rate. Hence, a higher tax rate reduces the financial risk premium at a given market value debt/equity ratio. This is because a higher tax rate increases the relative benefits of debt financing.



17-2 a. VU = = = $20 million.

b. ksU = 10.0%. (Given)

ksL = ksU + (ksU - kd)(D/S) = 10% + (10% - 5%)($10/$10) = 15.0%.

c. SL = = = $10 million.

VL = SL + D = $10 + $10 = $20 million.

d. WACCU = ksU = 10%.

For Firm L, we know that WACC must equal ksU = 10% according to Proposition I. But, we can demonstrate this as follows:

WACCL = (D/V)kd + (S/V)ks = ($10/$20)5% + ($10/$20)15%
= 2.5% + 7.5% = 10.0%.

e. VL = $22 million is not an equilibrium value according to MM. Here’s why. Suppose you owned 10 percent of Firm L’s equity, worth
0.10($22 million - $10 million) = $1.2 million. You could (1) sell your stock, (2) borrow an amount (at 5%) equal to 10 percent of
Firm L’s debt, or 0.10($10 million) = $1 million, and (3) end up with $1.2 million + $1 million = $2.2 million. You could spend $2 million to buy 10% of Firm U’s stock, and invest $200,000 in risk-free debt. Your cash stream would now be 10 percent of Firm U’s flow, or 0.10(EBITU) = 0.10($2 million) = $200,000, plus the return on the $200,000 of risk-free debt, minus the 0.05($1 million) = $50,000 interest expense for $150,000 plus the return on the extra $200,000. Before the arbitrage, your return was 10 percent of the $2 million - 0.05($10 million) = $1.5 million, or $150,000. Investors would do this arbitrage until VL = VU = $20 million.


17-3 a. VU = = = $12 million.

VL = VU + TD = $12 + (0.4)$10 = $16 million.

b. ksU = 0.10 = 10.0%.

ksL = ksU + (ksU - kd)(1 - T)(D/S)
= 10% + (10% - 5%)(0.6)($10/$6) = 10% + 5% = 15.0%.

c. SL = = = $6 million.

VL = SL + D = $6 + $10 = $16 million.
d. WACCU = ksU = 10.00%.

WACCL = (D/V)kd(1 - T) + (S/V)ks = ($10/$16)5%(0.6) + ($6/$16)15%
= 7.50%.


17-4 a. VU = = = $9.6 million.

b. VL = VU + D = $9.6 + $10
= $9.6 + [1 - 0.67]$10 = $9.6 + 0.33($10)
= $12.93 million.

VL = $12.93 million. Gain from leverage = $3.33 million.

c. The gain from leverage under Miller is 0.33($10) = $3.33 million. The gain from leverage in Problem 17-3 is 0.4($10) = $4 million. Thus, the addition of personal tax rates reduced the value of the debt financing.

d. VU = VL = $20 million. Gain from leverage = $0.00.

e. VU = $12 million. VL = $16 million. Gain from leverage = $4 million.

f. VU = $8.64 million. VL = $12.64 million.

Gain from leverage = $4.0 million. Note that the gain from leverage is the same as in Part (e) and will be the same value, as long as Td = Ts.

17-5 a. VU = SU = = = $14,545,455.

VL = VU = $14,545,455.

b. At D = $0:

ks = 11.0%; WACC = 11.0%.

At D = $6 million:

ksL = ksU + (ksU – kd)(D/S)
= 11% + (11% - 6%) = 11% + 3.51% = 14.51%.

WACC = (D/V)kd + (S/V)ks
= 6% + 14.51%
= 11.0%.
At D = $10 million:

ksL = 11% + 5% = 22.00%.

WACC = 6% + 22%
= 11.0%.

Leverage has no effect on firm value, which is a constant $14,545,455 since WACC is a constant 11%. This is because the cost of equity is increasing with leverage, and this increase exactly offsets the advantage of using lower cost debt financing.

c. VU = [(EBIT - I)(1 - T)]/ksU = [($1,600,000 - 0)(0.6)]/0.11 = $8,727,273.

VL = VU + TD = $8,727,273 + 0.4($6,000,000) = $11,127,273.

d. At D = $0:

ks = 11.0%. WACC = 11.0%.

At D = $6 million:

VL = VU + TD = $8,727,273 + 0.4($6,000,000) = $11,127,273.

ksL = ksU + (ksU - kd)(1 - T)(D/S)
= 11% + (11% - 6%)(0.6)($6,000,000/$5,127,273) = 14.51%.

WACC = (D/V)kd(1 - T) + (S/V)ks
=($6,000,000/$11,127,273)(6%)(0.6) + ($5,127,273/$11,127,273)(14.51%)
= 8.63%.

At D = $10 million:

VL = $8,727,273 + 0.4($10,000,000) = $12,727,273.

ksL = 11% + 5%(0.6)($10,000,000/$2,727,273) = 22.00%.
WACC = ($10,000,000/$12,727,273)(6%)(0.6) + ($2,727,273/$12,727,273)(22%)
= 7.54%.

Summary: (in millions)

D V D/V ks WACC
$ 0 $ 8.73 0% 11.0% 11.0%
6 11.13 53.9 14.5 8.6
10 12.73 78.6 22.0 7.5

e. The maximum amount of debt financing is 100 percent. At this level
D = V, and hence

VL = VU + TD = D
$8,727,273 + 0.4D = D
D - 0.4D = $8,727,273
0.6D = $8,727,273
D = $8,727,273/0.6 = $14,545,455 = V.

Since the bondholders are bearing the same risk as the equity holders of the unleveraged firm, kd is now 11 percent. Now, the total interest payment is $14,545,455(0.11) = $1.6 million, and the entire $1.6 million of EBIT would be paid out as interest. Thus, the investors (bondholders) would get $1.6 million per year, and it would be capitalized at 11 percent:

VL = = $14,545,455.

f. (1) Rising interest rates would cause kd and hence kd(1 - T) to increase, pulling up WACC. These changes would cause V to rise less steeply, or even to decline.

(2) Increased riskiness causes ks to rise faster than predicted by MM. Thus, WACC would increase and V would decrease.


17-6 a. Expected cash inflows, .

In millions of dollars:

Project A: CFA = 0.5($30.0) + 0.5($35.0) = $32.5.
Project B: CFB = 0.5($10.0) + 0.5($50.0) = $30.0.

b. Standard deviation of cash inflows:

.

Project A:



Project B:



Since sB > sA, Project B has greater total risk.

c. NPV for A will be either $30(PVIFA15%,10) - $150 = $30(5.0188) - $150 = $0.563 million or $35(5.0188) - $150 = $25.657 million, with an expected NPV of 0.5($0.563) + 0.5($25.657) = $13.110 million. B’s NPV would be either $10(5.0188) - $150 = -$99.812 million or $50(5.0188) - $150 = $100.938 million, with an expected NPV very close to zero ($0.563 million). Nevertheless, the firm’s stockholders would prefer the riskier Project B, because if it is successful they will realize an NPV of $100 million, but a failure will cost them very little as the bondholders will have to bear the loss. The stockholders are in a “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” situation.

d. The bondholders would certainly prefer Project A, since with either outcome of Project A their position would be strengthened.

e. The bondholders’ interests are safeguarded by protective covenants written into the bond contracts, and by a system of monitoring the firm’s activities. However, there is little they can do in a situation such as this one except to try to throw the company into bankruptcy as soon as an actual default occurs. Companies that are approaching bankruptcy often take actions such as this one in a desperate attempt to stay alive, and bondholders must try to thwart them.

f. The costs of monitoring corporate activities, and setting up protective covenants of various types, called “agency costs,” must on average be borne by the shareholders. These costs--implicit and explicit--increase with leverage. Thus, as leverage increases, the tax deductibility advantage increases, but so do agency costs. These counteracting effects help to produce an optimal level of debt at which the tax advantage of debt is exactly equal to the agency (and other) costs associated with debt.


17-7 a. Ms. Broske’s analysis:

VL = VU + TD - B.

VU = = = $20.0 million.

B = Expected financial distress costs
= (Probability of distress)(PV of distress costs) = P($8 million).

Therefore, VL = $20 + $0.4D - $8P.

Table 1, below, shows the details of the analysis (in millions of dollars):

Table 1:

D VU TD VU + TD P B = P($8) VL = VU + TD - B D/V
$ 0 $20.00 $ 0 $20.00 0 $ 0 $20.00 0%
2.0 20.00 0.80 20.80 0 0 20.80 9.62
4.0 20.00 1.60 21.60 0.05 0.40 21.20 18.87
6.0 20.00 2.40 22.40 0.07 0.56 21.84 27.47
8.0 20.00 3.20 23.20 0.10 0.80 22.40 35.71
10.0 20.00 4.00 24.00 0.17 1.36 22.64 44.17
12.0 20.00 4.80 24.80 0.47 3.76 21.04 57.03
14.0 20.00 5.60 25.60 0.90 7.20 18.40 76.09

The results are graphically depicted in the figure below:


Mr. Harris’s analysis:

S = . V = S + D.

WACC = .

Using the equations above, Mr. Harris arrives at the results shown in Table 2 and the next two figures.

Table 2:

Firm Value and Cost of Capital at Different Debt Levels

D kd ks S V D/V WACC
$ 0 - 12.00% $20.00 $20.00 0% 12.00%
2.0 8.0 12.25 18.81 20.81 9.61 11.53
4.0 8.3 12.75 17.26 21.26 18.81 11.29
6.0 9.0 13.00 15.97 21.97 27.31 10.92
8.0 10.0 13.15 14.60 22.60 35.40 10.62
10.0 11.0 13.40 12.99 22.99 43.50 10.44
12.0 13.0 14.65 9.99 21.99 54.57 10.91
14.0 16.0 17.00 6.21 20.21 69.27 11.88




Sample calculation: D = $4.0 million.

S =
= = $17.26 million.

V = D + S = $4 million + $17.26 million = $21.26 million.

WACC = = = 11.29%.

D/V = $4.0/$21.26 = 0.1881 = 18.81%.

Ms. Broske’s recommendations:

Optimal level of debt, D: $10.00 million.
Optimal value of firm, V: $22.64 million.
Optimal leverage, D/V: 44.17%.

Mr. Harris’s recommendations:

Optimal level of debt, D: $10.00 million.
Optimal value of firm, V: $22.99 million.
Optimal leverage, D/V: 43.50%.





b. The results and recommendations of the two analysts are very similar. This is not surprising since the two approaches have similar underlying concepts. The “MM with financial distress” approach starts off with the assumption of perfect capital markets and then explicitly incorporates market imperfections. The “current approach” builds in the effects of the same imperfections into the component cost of capital schedules. If the analysts’ assessments of market imperfections are similar, the results and recommendations should also be similar.
SOLUTION TO SPREADSHEET PROBLEM



17-8 a. Value of leveraged firm according to “pure” MM model with taxes:

VL = VU + TD.

As shown in the table below, value increases continuously with debt, and the optimal capital structure consists of 100 percent debt. Note: The table is not necessary to answer this question, but the data (in millions of dollars) are necessary for Part c of this problem.

Debt, D VU TD VL = VU + TD
$ 0 $12.0 $ 0 $12.0
2.5 12.0 1 3.0
5.0 12.0 2 14.0
7.5 12.0 3 15.0
10.0 12.0 4 16.0
12.5 12.0 5 17.0
15.0 12.0 6 18.0

b. With bankruptcy costs included in the analysis, the value of the leveraged firm is:

VB = VU + TD - PC,

where
VU + TD = value according to MM after-tax model.
P = probability of financial distress.
C = present value of distress costs.

D VU + TD P PC = (P)$8 VB = VU + TD - PC
$ 0 $12.0 0 $ 0 $12.0
2.5 13.0 0.025 0.20 12.8
5.0 14.0 0.050 0.40 13.6
7.5 15.0 0.100 0.80 14.2
10.0 16.0 0.250 2.00 14.0
12.5 17.0 0.500 4.00 13.0
15.0 18.0 0.750 6.00 12.0

Optimal debt level: D = $7.5 million.
Maximum value of firm: VL = $14.2 million.
Optimal debt/value ratio: D/VL = $7.5/$14.2 = 52.8%.
c.
















d. Optimal debt level: D = $7.5 million.
Maximum value of firm: VL = $17.2 million.
Optimal debt/value ratio: D/VL = $7.5/$17.2 = 43.60%.

Note that the optimal debt level is dependent on the term TD-PC rather than on the term VU.

e. Optimal debt level: D = $10.0 million.
Maximum value of firm: VL = $12.0 million.
Optimal debt/value ratio: D/VL = $10.0/$12 = 83.33%.

f. Optimal debt level: D = $10.0 million.
Maximum value of firm: VL = $14.75 million.
Optimal debt/value ratio: D/VL = $10.0/$14.75 = 67.80%.



MINI CASE


DONALD CHENEY, THE CEO OF CHENEY ELECTRONICS, IS CONCERNED ABOUT HIS FIRM’S LEVEL OF DEBT FINANCING. THE COMPANY USES SHORT-TERM DEBT TO FINANCE ITS TEMPORARY WORKING CAPITAL NEEDS, BUT IT DOES NOT USE ANY PERMANENT (LONG-TERM) DEBT. OTHER ELECTRONICS COMPANIES AVERAGE ABOUT 30 PERCENT DEBT, AND MR. CHENEY WONDERS WHY THE DIFFERENCE OCCURS, AND WHAT ITS EFFECTS ARE ON STOCK PRICES. TO GAIN SOME INSIGHTS INTO THE MATTER, HE POSES THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS TO YOU, HIS RECENTLY HIRED ASSISTANT:

A. BUSINESS WEEK RECENTLY RAN AN ARTICLE ON COMPANIES’ DEBT POLICIES, AND THE NAMES MODIGLIANI AND MILLER (MM) WERE MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES AS LEADING RESEARCHERS ON THE THEORY OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE. BRIEFLY, WHO ARE MM, AND WHAT ASSUMPTIONS ARE EMBEDDED IN THE MM AND MILLER MODELS?

ANSWER: MODIGLIANI AND MILLER (MM) PUBLISHED THEIR FIRST PAPER ON CAPITAL STRUCTURE (WHICH ASSUMED ZERO TAXES) IN 1958, AND THEY ADDED CORPORATE TAXES IN THEIR 1963 PAPER. MODIGLIANI WON THE NOBEL PRIZE IN ECONOMICS IN PART BECAUSE OF THIS WORK, AND MOST SUBSEQUENT WORK ON CAPITAL STRUCTURE THEORY STEMS FROM MM. HERE ARE THEIR ASSUMPTIONS:

FIRMS’ BUSINESS RISK CAN BE MEASURED BY sEBIT, AND FIRMS WITH THE SAME DEGREE OF RISK CAN BE GROUPED INTO HOMOGENEOUS BUSINESS RISK CLASSES.

ALL INVESTORS HAVE IDENTICAL (HOMOGENEOUS) EXPECTATIONS ABOUT ALL FIRMS’ FUTURE EARNINGS.

THERE ARE NO TRANSACTIONS (BROKERAGE) COSTS, EITHER TO INDIVIDUALS OR TO FIRMS.

ALL DEBT IS RISKLESS, AND BOTH INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS CAN BORROW UNLIMITED AMOUNTS OF MONEY AT THE SAME RISK-FREE RATE.

ALL CASH FLOWS ARE PERPETUITIES. THIS IMPLIES THAT FIRMS AND INDIVIDUALS ISSUE PERPETUAL DEBT, AND ALSO THAT FIRMS PAY OUT ALL EARNINGS AS DIVIDENDS, HENCE HAVE ZERO GROWTH. ADDITIONALLY, THIS IMPLIES THAT EXPECTED EBIT IS CONSTANT OVER TIME, ALTHOUGH REALIZED EBIT MAY TURN OUT TO BE HIGHER OR LOWER THAN WAS EXPECTED.

IN THEIR FIRST PAPER (1958), MM ALSO ASSUMED THAT THERE ARE NO CORPORATE OR PERSONAL TAXES.

THESE ASSUMPTIONS--ALL OF THEM--WERE NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR MM TO USE THE ARBITRAGE ARGUMENT TO DEVELOP AND PROVE THEIR EQUATIONS. IF THE ASSUMPTIONS ARE UNREALISTIC, THEN THE RESULTS OF THE MODEL ARE NOT GUARANTEED TO HOLD IN THE REAL WORLD.


B. ASSUME THAT FIRMS U AND L ARE IN THE SAME RISK CLASS, AND THAT BOTH HAVE EBIT = $500,000. FIRM U USES NO DEBT FINANCING, AND ITS COST OF EQUITY IS ksU = 14%. FIRM L HAS $1 MILLION OF DEBT OUTSTANDING AT A COST OF kd = 8%. THERE ARE NO TAXES. ASSUME THAT THE MM ASSUMPTIONS HOLD, AND THEN:

1. FIND V, S, ks, AND WACC FOR FIRMS U AND L.

ANSWER: FIRST, WE FIND VU AND VL:

VU = = = $3,571,429.

VL = VU = $3,571,429.

TO FIND ksL, IT IS NECESSARY FIRST TO FIND THE MARKET VALUES OF FIRM L’S DEBT AND EQUITY. THE VALUE OF ITS DEBT IS STATED TO BE $1,000,000. THEREFORE, WE CAN FIND S AS FOLLOWS:

D + SL = VL
SL = VL - D = $3,571,429 - $1,000,000 = $2,571,429.

NOW WE CAN FIND L’S COST OF EQUITY, ksL:


ksL = ksU + (ksU - kd)(D/S)
= 14.0% + (14.0% - 8.0%)($1,000,000/$2,571,429)
= 14.0% + 2.33% = 16.33%.


WE KNOW FROM PROPOSITION I THAT THE WACC MUST BE WACC = ksU = 14.0% FOR ALL FIRMS IN THIS RISK CLASS, REGARDLESS OF LEVERAGE, BUT THIS CAN BE VERIFIED USING THE WACC FORMULA:

WACC = wdkd + wceks = (D/V)kd + (S/V)ks
= ($1,000/$3,571)(8.0%) + ($2,571/$3,571)(16.33%)
= 2.24% + 11.76% = 14.0%.


B. 2. GRAPH (A) THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CAPITAL COSTS AND LEVERAGE AS MEASURED BY D/V, AND (B) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VALUE AND D.

ANSWER: FIGURE 1 PLOTS CAPITAL COSTS AGAINST LEVERAGE AS MEASURED BY THE DEBT/VALUE RATIO. NOTE THAT, UNDER THE MM NO-TAX ASSUMPTION, kd IS A CONSTANT 8 PERCENT, BUT ks INCREASES WITH LEVERAGE. FURTHER, THE INCREASE IN ks IS EXACTLY SUFFICIENT TO KEEP THE WACC CONSTANT--THE MORE DEBT THE FIRM ADDS TO ITS CAPITAL STRUCTURE, THE RISKIER THE EQUITY AND THUS THE HIGHER ITS COST. FIGURE 2 PLOTS THE FIRM’S VALUE AGAINST LEVERAGE (DEBT). WITH ZERO TAXES, MM ARGUE THAT VALUE IS UNAFFECTED BY LEVERAGE, AND THUS THE PLOT IS A HORIZONTAL LINE. (NOTE THAT WE SHOULD NOT REALLY EXTEND THE GRAPHS TO D/V = 100% OR D = $2.5 MILLION, BECAUSE AT THIS AMOUNT OF LEVERAGE THE DEBTHOLDERS BECOME THE FIRM’S OWNERS, AND THUS A DISCONTINUITY EXISTS.)


C. USING THE DATA GIVEN IN PART B, BUT NOW ASSUMING THAT FIRMS L AND U ARE BOTH SUBJECT TO A 40 PERCENT CORPORATE TAX RATE, REPEAT THE ANALYSIS CALLED FOR IN B(1) AND B(2) UNDER THE MM WITH-TAX MODEL.

ANSWER: WITH CORPORATE TAXES ADDED, THE MM PROPOSITIONS BECOME:

PROPOSITION I: VL = VU + TD.

PROPOSITION II: ksL = ksU + (ksU – kd)(1 - T)(D/S).

THERE ARE TWO VERY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THESE PROPOSITIONS AND THE ZERO-TAX PROPOSITIONS: (1) WHEN CORPORATE TAXES ARE ADDED, VL DOES NOT EQUAL VU; RATHER, VL INCREASES AS DEBT IS ADDED TO THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE, AND THE GREATER THE DEBT USAGE, THE HIGHER THE VALUE OF THE FIRM. (2) ksL INCREASES LESS RAPIDLY WHEN CORPORATE TAXES ARE CONSIDERED. THIS IS SEEN BY NOTING THAT THE PROPOSITION II SLOPE COEFFICIENT CHANGES FROM (ksU – kd) TO (ksU – kd)(1 – T), SO AT ANY POSITIVE T, THE SLOPE COEFFICIENT IS SMALLER.
NOTE ALSO THAT WITH CORPORATE TAXES CONSIDERED, VU CHANGES TO

VU = = = $2,142,857 VERSUS $3,571,429.

THIS REPRESENTS A 40% DECLINE IN VALUE, AND IT IS LOGICAL, BECAUSE THE 40% TAX RATE TAKES AWAY 40% OF THE INCOME AND HENCE 40% OF THE FIRM’S VALUE.
LOOKING AT VL, WE SEE THAT:

VL = VU + TD = $2,142,857 + 0.4($1,000,000)
VL = $2,142,857 + $400,000 - $2,542,857 VERSUS $2,142,857 for VU.

THUS, THE USE OF $1,000,000 OF DEBT FINANCING INCREASES FIRM VALUE BY T(D) = $400,000 OVER ITS LEVERAGE-FREE VALUE.
TO FIND ksL, IT IS FIRST NECESSARY TO FIND THE MARKET VALUE OF THE EQUITY:

D + SL = VL
$1,000,000 + SL = $2,542,857
SL = $1,542,857.

NOW,

ksL = ksU + (ksU - kd)(1 - T)(D/S)
= 14.0% + (14.0% - 8.0%)(0.6)($1,000/$1,543)
= 14.0% + 2.33% = 16.33%.

FIRM L’S WACC IS 11.8 PERCENT:

WACCL = (D/V)kd(1 - T) + (S/V)ks
= ($1,000/$2,543)(8%)(0.6) + (1,543/$2,543)(16.33%)
= 1.89% + 9.91% = 11.8%.

THE WACC IS LOWER FOR THE LEVERAGED FIRM THAN FOR THE UNLEVERAGED FIRM WHEN CORPORATE TAXES ARE CONSIDERED.
FIGURE 3 BELOW PLOTS CAPITAL COSTS AT DIFFERENT D/V RATIOS UNDER THE MM MODEL WITH CORPORATE TAXES. HERE THE WACC DECLINES CONTINUOUSLY AS THE FIRM USES MORE AND MORE DEBT, WHEREAS THE WACC WAS CONSTANT IN THE WITHOUT-TAX MODEL. THIS RESULT OCCURS BECAUSE OF THE TAX DEDUCTIBILITY OF DEBT FINANCING (INTEREST PAYMENTS), WHICH IMPACTS THE GRAPH IN TWO WAYS: (1) THE COST OF DEBT IS LOWERED BY (1 - T), AND (2) THE COST OF EQUITY INCREASES AT A SLOWER RATE WHEN CORPORATE TAXES ARE CONSIDERED BECAUSE OF THE (1 - T) TERM IN PROPOSITION II. THE COMBINED EFFECT PRODUCES THE DOWNWARD-SLOPING WACC CURVE.
FIGURE 4 SHOWS THAT, WHEN CORPORATE TAXES ARE CONSIDERED, THE FIRM’S VALUE INCREASES CONTINUOUSLY AS MORE AND MORE DEBT IS USED.







D. NOW SUPPOSE INVESTORS ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TAX RATES:

TD = 30% AND TS = 12%.

1. WHAT IS THE GAIN FROM LEVERAGE ACCORDING TO THE MILLER MODEL?

ANSWER: TO BEGIN, NOTE THAT MILLER’S PROPOSITION I IS STATED AS FOLLOWS:

VL = VU + D.

HERE THE BRACKETED TERM REPLACES T IN THE EARLIER MM TAX MODEL, AND
TC = CORPORATE TAX RATE, TD = PERSONAL TAX RATE ON DEBT INCOME, AND
TS = PERSONAL TAX RATE ON STOCK INCOME.
IF THERE ARE NO PERSONAL OR CORPORATE TAXES, THEN TC = TS = TD = 0, AND MILLER’S MODEL SIMPLIFIES TO

VL = VU,

WHICH IS THE SAME AS IN MM’S 1958 MODEL, WHICH ASSUMED ZERO TAXES.
IF THERE ARE CORPORATE TAXES, BUT NO PERSONAL TAXES, THEN TS = TD
= 0, AND MILLER’S MODEL SIMPLIFIES TO

VL = VU + TCD,

WHICH IS THE SAME AS MM OBTAINED IN THEIR 1963 ARTICLE, WHICH CONSIDERED ONLY CORPORATE TAXES.
WE CAN NOW ANALYZE THE FIRM’S VALUE NUMERICALLY, USING MILLER’S MODEL: IF TC = 40%, TD = 30%, AND TS = 12%, THEN MILLER’S MODEL BECOMES




D. 2. HOW DOES THIS GAIN COMPARE TO THE GAIN IN THE MM MODEL WITH CORPORATE TAXES?

ANSWER: IF ONLY CORPORATE TAXES WERE CONSIDERED, THEN

VL = VU + TCD = VU + 0.40D.

THE NET EFFECT DEPENDS ON THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES ON INCOME FROM STOCKS AND BONDS, AND ON CORPORATE TAX RATES. THE TAX RATE ON STOCK INCOME IS REDUCED VIS-A-VIS THE TAX RATE ON DEBT INCOME IF THE COMPANY RETAINS MORE OF ITS INCOME AND THUS PROVIDES MORE CAPITAL GAINS. IF TS DECLINES, WHILE TC AND TD REMAIN CONSTANT, THE SLOPE COEFFICIENT, WHICH SHOWS THE BENEFIT OF DEBT IN A GRAPH LIKE FIGURE 4, IS INCREASED. THUS, A COMPANY WITH A LOW PAYOUT RATIO GETS GREATER BENEFITS UNDER THE MILLER MODEL THAN A COMPANY WITH A HIGH PAYOUT.
NOTE THAT THE EFFECTS OF LEVERAGE AS COMPUTED BY MILLER’S MODEL WERE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT BEFORE 1987, BECAUSE IN EARLIER YEARS CAPITAL GAINS WERE TAXED AT ONLY 40 PERCENT OF THE RATE IMPOSED ON DIVIDENDS (TS . 20% AND TD . 50%). NOW THE ADVANTAGES OF CAPITAL GAINS ARE (1) THE FACT THAT TAXES ON THEM ARE DEFERRED, AND (2) INDIVIDUALS IN THE HIGHER TAX BRACKETS OBTAIN AN ADVANTAGE BECAUSE THE TAX RATE IMPOSED ON LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS IS 20 PERCENT.


D. 3. WHAT DOES THE MILLER MODEL IMPLY ABOUT THE EFFECT OF CORPORATE DEBT ON THE VALUE OF THE FIRM, THAT IS, HOW DO PERSONAL TAXES AFFECT THE SITUATION?

ANSWER: THE ADDITION OF PERSONAL TAXES LOWERS THE VALUE OF DEBT FINANCING TO THE FIRM. THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE CAN BE EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS: THE U.S. CORPORATE TAX LAWS FAVOR DEBT FINANCING OVER EQUITY FINANCING, BECAUSE INTEREST EXPENSE IS TAX DEDUCTIBLE WHILE DIVIDENDS ARE NOT. THIS PROVIDES AN INCENTIVE FOR FIRMS TO USE DEBT FINANCING, AND THIS WAS THE MESSAGE OF THE MM 1963 PAPER. AT THE SAME TIME, THOUGH, THE U.S. PERSONAL TAX LAWS FAVOR INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SECURITIES OVER DEBT SECURITIES, BECAUSE EQUITY INCOME IS EFFECTIVELY TAXED AT A LOWER RATE. THUS, INVESTORS REQUIRE HIGHER RISK-ADJUSTED BEFORE-TAX RETURNS ON DEBT TO BE INDUCED TO BUY DEBT RATHER THAN EQUITY, AND THIS REDUCES THE ADVANTAGE TO ISSUING DEBT. THE BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSION WE REACH FROM AN ANALYSIS OF THE MILLER MODEL IS THAT PERSONAL TAXES LOWER, BUT DO NOT ELIMINATE, THE VALUE OF DEBT FINANCING.


E. WHAT CAPITAL STRUCTURE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS DO THE THREE THEORIES (MM WITHOUT TAXES, MM WITH CORPORATE TAXES, AND MILLER) SUGGEST TO FINANCIAL MANAGERS? EMPIRICALLY, DO FIRMS APPEAR TO FOLLOW ANY ONE OF THESE GUIDELINES?

ANSWER: IN A ZERO TAX WORLD, MM THEORY SAYS THAT CAPITAL STRUCTURE IS IRRELEVANT--IT HAS NO IMPACT ON FIRM VALUE. THUS, ONE CAPITAL STRUCTURE IS AS GOOD AS ANOTHER. WITH CORPORATE BUT NOT PERSONAL TAXES CONSIDERED, THE MM MODEL STATES THAT FIRM VALUE INCREASES CONTINUOUSLY WITH FINANCIAL LEVERAGE, AND HENCE FIRMS SHOULD USE (ALMOST) 100 PERCENT DEBT FINANCING. MILLER ADDED PERSONAL TAXES TO THE ANALYSIS, AND THE VALUE OF DEBT FINANCING IS SEEN TO BE REDUCED BUT NOT ELIMINATED, SO AGAIN FIRMS SHOULD USE (ALMOST) 100 PERCENT DEBT FINANCING.
THE MILLER MODEL IS THE MOST REALISTIC OF THE THREE, BUT IF IT WERE REALLY CORRECT, WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE FIRMS USING ALMOST ALL DEBT FINANCING. HOWEVER, ON AVERAGE, FIRMS USE ONLY ABOUT 40 PERCENT DEBT. NOTE, THOUGH, THAT DEBT RATIOS INCREASED ALL DURING THE 1980s, SO COMPANIES WERE MOVING TOWARD THE MILLER POSITION. HOWEVER, IN THE 1990s WE SEE FIRMS REDUCING THEIR DEBT.


F. WHAT ARE FINANCIAL DISTRESS AND AGENCY COSTS? HOW DOES THE ADDITION OF THESE COSTS CHANGE THE MM AND MILLER MODELS? (EXPRESS YOUR ANSWER IN WORDS, IN EQUATION FORM, AND IN GRAPHICAL FORM.)

ANSWER: AS FIRMS USE MORE AND MORE DEBT FINANCING, THEY FACE A HIGHER PROBABILITY OF FUTURE FINANCIAL DISTRESS, WHICH BRINGS WITH IT DECLINES IN OPERATING INCOME AND DEAD-WEIGHT COSTS SUCH AS LEGAL FEES ASSOCIATED WITH BANKRUPTCY. THE POSSIBILITY OF THESE COSTS INCREASES THE POTENTIAL RISKS FACED BY BOTH THE STOCKHOLDERS AND BONDHOLDERS. FURTHER, BOTH THE MM AND MILLER MODELS IGNORED THESE COSTS, AND, HENCE, THOSE MODELS UNDERSTATE THE TRUE RISK-ADJUSTED REQUIRED RATES OF RETURN AND THUS OVERSTATE THE VALUE OF LEVERAGE. ALSO, CERTAIN AGENCY COSTS (THE COSTS OF MONITORING THE FIRM’S ACTIONS) INCREASE WITH LEVERAGE, AND THE MM AND MILLER MODELS IGNORE THESE COSTS, WHICH MUST BE BORNE BY SHAREHOLDERS. WITH FINANCIAL DISTRESS AND AGENCY COSTS ADDED, THE VALUATION MODEL BECOMES

VL = VU + [X]D - - .

HERE THE BRACKETED TERM X REPRESENTS EITHER TC IN THE MM MODEL OR THE MORE COMPLEX MILLER TERM. WHEN FINANCIAL DISTRESS AND AGENCY COSTS ARE ADDED, WE SEE THAT THE USE OF LEVERAGE IS A TRADEOFF BETWEEN THE TAX BENEFITS OF DEBT FINANCING AND THE RISK-RELATED COSTS.
FIGURE 5 PLOTS CAPITAL COSTS VERSUS LEVERAGE WHEN FINANCIAL DISTRESS AND AGENCY COSTS ARE CONSIDERED. NOW DEBT COSTS INCREASE WITH LEVERAGE, AND EQUITY COSTS INCREASE FASTER THAN BEFORE. THE RESULT IS THE TRADITIONAL U-SHAPED WACC CURVE, A WACC WHICH FIRST DECLINES, THEN REACHES A MINIMUM, AND THEN BEGINS TO INCREASE.
FIGURE 6 SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEVERAGE AND FIRM VALUE. FIRM VALUE FIRST RISES, THEN REACHES A MAXIMUM, THEN FALLS. AS THE GRAPHS REVEAL, THE WACC IS MINIMIZED, AND THE FIRM’S VALUE IS MAXIMIZED, AT THE SAME AMOUNT OF DEBT, ABOUT $1 MILLION.




G. HOW ARE FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS RISK MEASURED IN A MARKET RISK FRAMEWORK?

ANSWER: A FIRM’S STAND-ALONE RISK (TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS) IS THE SUM OF ITS BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL RISK:

STAND-ALONE RISK = BUSINESS RISK + FINANCIAL RISK.

WITHIN A STAND-ALONE RISK FRAMEWORK, BUSINESS RISK CAN BE MEASURED BY THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE ROE OF AN UNLEVERAGED FIRM AND STAND-ALONE RISK CAN BE MEASURED BY THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE ROE OF A LEVERAGED FIRM. THESE EQUATIONS SET FORTH THE SITUATION:

STAND-ALONE RISK = sROE.

BUSINESS RISK = sROE(U).

FINANCIAL RISK FOR A LEVERAGED FIRM = sROE - sROE(U).

HAMADA COMBINED THE CAPM AND THE MM WITH-CORPORATE-TAXES MODEL TO OBTAIN THIS EXPRESSION FOR ksL:

ksL = kRF + (kM - kRF)bU + (kM - kRF)bU(1 - T)(D/S)
= + + .

HERE WE SEE THAT STOCKHOLDERS REQUIRE A RETURN TO COMPENSATE THEM FOR THE TIME VALUE OF MONEY, kRF; A PREMIUM TO COMPENSATE THEM FOR BEARING BUSINESS RISK, (kM - kRF)bU; AND A PREMIUM TO COMPENSATE THEM FOR BEARING FINANCIAL RISK, (kM - kRF)bU(1 - T)(D/S).
HAMADA ALSO DEVELOPED THE FOLLOWING EQUATION TO SHOW HOW LEVERAGE AFFECTS BETA:

b = bU + bU(1 - T)(D/S)
= + .

AN UNLEVERAGED FIRM’S BETA IS DETERMINED SOLELY BY ITS BUSINESS RISK, BUT BETA RISES AS LEVERAGE INCREASES. THUS, IN A MARKET RISK FRAMEWORK, BUSINESS RISK IS MEASURED BY THE UNLEVERAGED BETA, bU; FINANCIAL RISK IS MEASURED BY THE CHANGE IN BETA; AND TOTAL MARKET RISK IS MEASURED BY THE LEVERAGED BETA, b:

BUSINESS RISK = bU.

FINANCIAL RISK = b – bU = bU(1 – T)(D/S).

TOTAL MARKET RISK = b.


H. WHAT IS THE ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION, OR SIGNALING, THEORY OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE?

ANSWER: THE ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION (SIGNALING) THEORY RECOGNIZES THAT MANAGERS TYPICALLY KNOW MORE ABOUT A FIRM’S PROSPECTS THAN DO INVESTORS. THUS, INVESTORS VIEW MANAGERIAL ACTIONS AS SIGNALS. SINCE MANAGERS WILL ONLY ISSUE NEW COMMON STOCK WHEN NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES EXIST OR WHEN THE STOCK IS OVERVALUED, INVESTORS VIEW COMMON STOCK SALES AS A NEGATIVE SIGNAL AND THE STOCK PRICE FALLS. MANAGERS DO NOT WANT TO TRIGGER A PRICE DECLINE, SO A RESERVE BORROWING CAPACITY IS MAINTAINED.


I. WHAT IS THE “PECKING ORDER” THEORY OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE?

ANSWER: THE “PECKING ORDER” THEORY RESULTS FROM OBSERVED BEHAVIOR BASED ON A SURVEY BY GORDON DONALDSON AND FROM THE ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION THEORY. IT SAYS THAT FIRMS FOLLOW A SPECIFIC ORDER WHEN FINANCING IS REQUIRED:

1. FIRST, USE INTERNAL FUNDS.

2. NEXT, DRAW DOWN MARKETABLE SECURITIES.

3. THEN, ISSUE DEBT.

4. FINALLY, AND ONLY AS A LAST RESORT, USE COMMON STOCK FINANCING.